Leprosy recorded in Ireland for the first time in decades - Irish Examiner

Snowie

Burn them

he probably two years under the bell and still ringing

MadsL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U74s8nFE7No

Snowie

MadsL wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U74s8nFE7No

no pleaseing some people :pac:

Cavehill Red

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Therefore a ban on entry, or a mandatory treatment would be illegal, and therefore render mandatory testing redundant, if not itself illegal.

You haven't come within an arse's roar of proving this, because it is simply not the case. There is nothing in the ECHR or Irish legislation preventing mandatory screening.

Cavehill Red

MadsL wrote: »

You'd want to stop worrying frankly.

http://www.chg.ie/content/pdfs/resurgenceofTBinROI.pdf

By a geographer, not a medic, I notice. He, like you, appears more concerned with the speculated possibility of increased xenophobia rather than the actual reality of reopened TB wards.

Cody Pomeray

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You haven't come within an arse's roar of proving this, because it is simply not the case. There is nothing in the ECHR or Irish legislation preventing mandatory screening.

OK; lets start again.

The European Courts of Human Rights ruling is a binding interpretation in respect of Kiyutin v. Russia 2011, which I described earlier.

I have already told you that I think this makes mandatory testing illegal.

A quick search online finds research establishing that this is the case. I consider my argument proved: you cannot issue either blanket bans, and you cannot force mandatory screening (excepting, of course, where the applicant has a right to seek a mandatory screening in respect of asylum cases)

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=mandatory%20screening%20eu%20immigration&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEwQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fsocial%2FBlobServlet%3FdocId%3D3948%26langId%3Den&ei=llOzUYrUD-Wy7Aa5_YDAAQ&usg=AFQjCNF8U_crMW2Z_cieHtHJc-qem8cpoQ&bvm=bv.47534661,d.ZGU

However, countries conducting mandatory screening and/or refusing entry to people living with HIV/AIDS do so despite the International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights (UNHCHR/UNAIDS, 1998): para 105 which stipulate that "[t]here is no public health rationale for restricting liberty of movement or choice of residence on the ground of HIV status." The UNHCR is strictly against mandatory testing and the exclusion of those infected with HIV from countries purely on the grounds of their HIV status (Spiegel P. B. and Nankoe, 2004).

Cavehill Red

No, that's a UN position, not an EU one, and I'm still waiting to see you cite the legislation applicable in this state which says that mandatory screening - as opposed to preventing entry or forced treatment - is banned.

Cody Pomeray

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, that's a UN position, not an EU one, and I'm still waiting to see you cite the legislation applicable in this state which says that mandatory screening - as opposed to preventing entry or forced treatment - is banned.

You're missing the point; the interpretation of the Convention in Kiyutin is firstly that a member state contracted to the ECHR cannot ban entry on this kind of serious ill health alone. It is a fact that neither can a member state subject a resident to enforced medical treatment in these cases. The ECtHR regularly refers to UNCHR guidelines and aside from the explanations given in the course of the Kiyutin judgement, the fact that the UNCHR disapproves of mandatory screening would almost certainly be adequate (taking ALL of these points together) to ban mandatory screening explicitly, given that its current status is only implicit.

As a point of note, the ECtHR relied on the UNCHR to ban refusal of entry based on ill health.

However, lets assume you are correct and mandatory screening for HIV and related diseases would be legal.

What then? The entrant cannot be barred from the country, the entrant cannot be forced to be subjected to medical treatment, and if he wants medical treatment, he would have approached the health authorities anyway. So like I said - completely redundant. Not to mention, enormously expensive.
Sorry, but it's a terrible idea.

up for anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu8fzRIRHoE

Cavehill Red

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're missing the point

No, I'm not. You've continually offered your interpretation of non-binding non-Irish charters when I'm asking you to cite the relevant legislation that specifically prevents the introduction of mandatory health screening. You can't, hence your obfuscatory bluster, because no such legislation exists.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What then? The entrant cannot be barred from the country, the entrant cannot be forced to be subjected to medical treatment, and if he wants medical treatment, he would have approached the health authorities anyway. So like I said - completely redundant. Not to mention, enormously expensive.
Sorry, but it's a terrible idea.

The purpose would be to inform people who did not know that they were infected and offer treatment and guidelines for behaviour which would prevent an outbreak of illness in Ireland. It would also facilitate the identify (and maintain a database thereof) of infected people which would prove useful in the event of an outbreak, and would provide evidence for prosecution in the event that someone was deliberately causing infection. Finally, it would serve as it does in many other countries as a defining factor in issuing visas for residency.Ireland is entirely capable of barring any non-EU citizen from entry to the nation for any reason or none.

Cody Pomeray

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The purpose would be to inform people who did not know that they were infected

In that case, it should be applied on a national basis to all citizens entering and leaving the airports, irrespective of citizenship or residency status.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Ireland is entirely capable of barring any non-EU citizen from entry to the nation for any reason or none.

As with most of your opinions on this topic, this too is wrong.

The ECtHR decision as regards Kiyutin is binding on Ireland; this means that the ruling applies to non-EU citizens who have a prima facie right to remain in this jurisdiction; an example would be non EU spouses of EU citizens, or their dependent family members.

Like I said, it would be interesting for someone to take a case and establish the illegality of screening explicitly. On top of its legal status, mandatory testing would be redundant. Using HIV as an example, the WHO has said the diversion of resources toward screening of international travellers and away from measures to prevent transmission is difficult to justify epidemiologically, economically, and ethically

Norfolk Enchants

Let me get this straight. If I try to import meat from a non EU country, the produce will need to be tested and pass clearance before entry. But its illegal to screen people, from countries riddled with deadly diseases, upon their entering a member state?

Free movement of EU citizens, I can live with. But the EU needs to butt out when it comes to non EU citizens migrating to individual member states. Should be at the member states discretion.

dsmythy

Smallpox and bubonic plague next.....

Cody Pomeray

Norfolk Enchants wrote: »

Let me get this straight. If I try to import meat from a non EU country, the produce will need to be tested and pass clearance before entry. But its illegal to screen people, from countries riddled with deadly diseases

You're usually not going to be digesting foreigners.

As with assimilating their bodily fluids, as with all cases of unprotected sex and intravenous drug use, the onus is on the participants to protect themselves. The ECtHR have very clearly said that the state cannot legislate for that kind of behaviour in the case of these illnesses.

The member states contracted to the European Convention on Human Rights are, obviously, still entitled to protect their borders against serious, virulent, airborne illnesses that are difficult to treat.

Nodin

dsmythy wrote: »

Smallpox and bubonic plague next.....

....smallpox has been eradicated, however they still have plague in some parts of the USA and elsewhere.

MadsL

Cavehill Red wrote: »

By a geographer, not a medic, I notice. He, like you, appears more concerned with the speculated possibility of increased xenophobia rather than the actual reality of reopened TB wards.

Nice. A side of ad hominem with your fearmongering.

http://geography.nuim.ie/staff/pringledennis

Research Interests

Medical Geography (e.g. social and spatial inequalities in health; history and potential threat of infectious diseases).
GIS / Computer Cartography / Statistical Methods / Computer Applcations in Geography (e.g. Bayesian techniques; web-based GIS; open source GIS).
Political Geography (e.g. growth of nationalism; national conflicts).
Social Geography (e.g. deprivation indices).
Population Geography (e.g. population projections).
Funded Research, Grants and Awards

Member of the Project Team for Health Atlas Ireland – an on-line health information system. Funding from the Health Research Board and Health Services Executive is expected to rise to ca. €5m by 2010.
(With P. Connell) €6,000 from National Council For Ageing And The Elderly to produce population projections to 2020, 2003.
€200,000 from Health Research Board for ‘Resource Allocation in the Irish Health Services’, 2007. Lead Agency: School of Public Health and Population Sciences, UCD.

HSE clearly consider him qualified, perhaps you know better. And as for "actual reality" could you point me to one of those "reopened" TB wards???

Norfolk Enchants

Tuberculosis screening has not been extended for all the "at-risk groups" in Ireland, the HSE has confirmed.
Experts have warned that foreign workers should be encouraged to attend voluntary clinics to screen for the infectious disease, and not just non-EU nationals.
President of the Irish Thoracic Society (ITS), Dr Terry O'Connor, said that non-EU nationals must undergo a series of health checks.
Mr O'Connor, a consultant respiratory physician at Mercy University Hospital, said that the same should apply to immigrants from European countries.

But what would Mr O'Connor know, eh? Anyway, a opinion poll conducted on this issue found that 76% of Irish people want all non EU immigrants to be screened for disease upon arrival.

Nodin

Norfolk Enchants wrote: »

Tuberculosis screening has not been extended for all the "at-risk groups" in Ireland, the HSE has confirmed.
Experts have warned that foreign workers should be encouraged to attend voluntary clinics to screen for the infectious disease, and not just non-EU nationals.
President of the Irish Thoracic Society (ITS), Dr Terry O'Connor, said that non-EU nationals must undergo a series of health checks.
Mr O'Connor, a consultant respiratory physician at Mercy University Hospital, said that the same should apply to immigrants from European countries.

But what would Mr O'Connor know, eh? Anyway, a opinion poll conducted on this issue found that 76% of Irish people want all non EU immigrants to be screened for disease upon arrival.

Nice of them.

Where will we get the money to pay for it?

Norfolk Enchants

Nodin wrote: »

Nice of them.

Where will we get the money to pay for it?

Include the fee in the visa costs or ask them to provide a medical certificate stating that they have a clean bill of health.

Nodin

Norfolk Enchants wrote: »

Include the fee in the visa costs or ask them to provide a medical certificate stating that they have a clean bill of health.

You realise yer man that had the leprosy had a clean bill of health when he arrived in the country....?

JustAThought

Nodin wrote: »

You realise yer man that had the leprosy had a clean bill of health when he arrived in the country....?

Clearly not . And why are we importing from South America - with medical histories of leprosy? Ffs.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

Nice of them.

Where will we get the money to pay for it?

Why would "we" pay for it?

ynul31f47k6b59

Anyone else get the image of that good Samaritan woman with the ginger hair kneeling down beside the leper from the religion book at school every time they see the word leprosy?

No?

*gets coat*

mikemac1

Adam Straight Steroid wrote: »

Anyone else get the image of that good Samaritan woman with the ginger hair kneeling down beside the leper from the religion book at school every time they see the word leprosy?

No?

*gets coat*

Do gooders out!

We are here to rant about immigration :mad:
It's what AH does best

Phill Ewinn

mikemac1 wrote: »

Do gooders out!

We are here to rant about immigration :mad:
It's what AH does best

Good looking foreign females good.
People with incurable infectious diseases bad.

Dyr

Deeply misleading thread title tbh. Leprosy was recorded in florida back in the 80s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFyZvw84T3g

Norfolk Enchants

Nodin wrote: »

You realise yer man that had the leprosy had a clean bill of health when he arrived in the country....?

What? He didn't contract the disease here in Ireland.

Norfolk Enchants

Of the 341 new diagnoses in 2012, 123 (36%) were born in Ireland and 162 (48%) were born
abroad. Information on geographic origin was unavailable for 56 cases.
Of the 162 not born in Ireland, 84 were born in sub‐Saharan Africa, 24 were born in Latin
America, 21 were born in Central and Eastern Europe and 20 were born in Western Europe.
The number of new diagnoses among those born in sub‐Saharan Africa increased from 63 in
2011 to 84 in 2012.

http://www.hpsc.ie/hpsc/A-Z/HIVSTIs/HIVandAIDS/SurveillanceReports/File,14126,en.pdf

We had our first case of leprosy in decades, a rise in tb and now this. Is it time for us to screen all newcomers who wish to remain in Ireland on a long-term basis?

An opinion poll was conducted on this issue and it concluded that 76% of Irish people wished for all new residents to be screened upon entry.

MadsL

Take your scaremongering elsewhere perhaps?

kaimera

hiv is still a thing isit?

today i learned...